Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!atha!aunro!ersys!bking From: ersys!bking@nro.cs.athabascau.ca (Barry King) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.misc Subject: Re: Windowing environments Message-ID: Date: 19 Apr 91 12:25:15 GMT References: <26411@hydra.gatech.EDU> Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems, Edmonton, AB, Canada Lines: 137 > In article <1991Apr16.004756.2041@ncsu.edu> >eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu ....deleted text ... > This is assuming that you have all the necessary hardware to run > OS/2. I mean Windows will run on a 640K XT. OS/2 needs 4 MEGS of > memory and 16 MEG of hard drive space to even install. Sure, Windows will run on an XT...just like gasoline engines will run on diesel. It'll run, but not very well and who'd want to. Everyone _knows_ you need a fast 286 at a minimum. Windows isn't exactly a lightweight either. > >> There is talk about a merge between OS/2 and Windows > >> in the future. Hopefully this will happen soon. > > Yeah, a great thought. However, would the result have any of the > bad features of OS/2? If it has enough of them, it may cause the > new OS/2WIndows stuff to a crash and burn like OS/2. What 'bad features' are you referring to? And by 'crash and burn', I hope you aren't implying that Windows doesn't crash often. I run Windows 8 hours a day at work and OS/2 4 to 8 hours a day at home - OS/2 has crashed maybe five times in the last 6 months. I do development and it's generally been my code that has crashed the system. Windows crashes at least 3 times in one week. > Windows will continue to have a good market even with the new OS/2 > because of size and hardware requirements. Not everybody has a 386 > with gobs of Agreed, kinda. My 386 at home has 4 Mb. I can do everything I need to. My machine at work has 14 Mb - it runs Windows (or OS/2) and _needs_ 'gobs of RAM' as well. Anyone trying to do anything productive with Windows knows that a minimum of 4 Mb is required to do anything useful. Same with OS/2. > Also, unless it is guaranteed 100% DOS compatible it is useless to > DOS users. 95% is only good when you can PICK which 95% is going > to work! Windows is hardly 100% compatible with DOS or DOS applications. WordPerfect is one example. Windows itself is another. If OS/2 v2.0 runs native DOS in a virtual machine it will be as compatible with DOS as Windows currently is. Not even all DOS apps are 'compatible' with DOS...you've gotta pick 'n choose anyway... > > 'Nuff said. Agreed. > "Where there is a will, there is a way to subvert it!" - me. Words to live by. Clearly, DOS isn't going to go away anytime soon and not everybody needs OS/2. Not everybody needs Windows. The point here is that OS/2 has suffered from a lot of bad marketing and bad press. There's a lot of OS/2 mysticism (and myths...) because many people don't understand what OS/2 is all about. They also somehow feel threatened that they'll have to give up DOS...baffling. If you can run Windows apps with a true o/s underneath, that's definitely got to be better than having DOS underneath. Windows and the PM are designed (mostly) to isolate the user somewhat from the details of what's happening beneath. OS/2 can do this better than DOS and the reasons for this are well understood, in most circles. Anyway.... Barry King ersys!bking@nro.cs.athabascau.ca Edmonton Remote Systems: Serving Northern Alberta since 1982